Gareth Thomas: Current protectionist policies from OECD countries prevent developing countries from accessing our markets and trading their way out of poverty. If, for example, subsidies to US and EU cotton farmers were removed, it has been estimated that cotton exports from some of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa could increase by up to 75 per cent. There was some progress made in Hong Kong but more progress is needed to secure a truly pro-development outcome to the Doha development round. We are working to that end.

Stephen Crabb: Last September the Prime Minister warned that failure at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December would echo right round the world. Given the disappointing outcome in Hong Kong, what can the Minister say to persuade the House and observers round the globe that the WTO is not a dysfunctional organisation in which the interests of the poorest people on the planet are betrayed time and time again?

William Cash: Will the Minister accept that unless the Government address the problems that arise from the EU in the context of protectionism, there is no point in talking about whether we will be in the box or out of the box. The questions are perfectly clear. There is a determination in certain countries in Europe for protectionist policies to remain. Should not the Government ensure that they get the message across to those countries and do something about the matter?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right. We have continued to provide support to a range of developing countries to help them be in a better position to negotiate at the WTO talks. We strongly support the proposal to fast-track cotton in the agricultural negotiations, including, providing support, for example, to the chair of the least developed countries group, Minister Patel from Zambia, who warmly appreciated our support and the way in which it had enabled him to make his proposals to our American friends.

Andrew George: Before the Prime Minister arrives and just between ourselves, would the Minister care to share his views on why the Hong Kong trade talks were such a failure in development terms? After all, the UK held the presidency of both the G8 and the EU, and the Prime Minister's favoured son led for Europe. Does the Minister accept that the talks were a failure for the UK, and what does he believe needs to be done to bring trade Ministers back together in order to iron out the problems as quickly as possible?

Sandra Gidley: What recent assessment he has made of contributions and pledges to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria.

Hilary Benn: Through the changes made under the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement—the TRIPS agreement—developing countries are now in a better position compulsorily to licence the manufacture of such drugs, if they have their own manufacturing capacity and, under the most recent change, to import from others if they do not. We need to work with and support developing countries in using the powers available to them, to ensure that they can obtain the drugs at a price they can afford.
	We also need to encourage the drug companies to undertake more research into antiretroviral treatment for children. One of the problems that developing countries face is that, because AIDS did not develop in the west as a disease that affected children, the research went into the treatment of adults. Children have particular needs, however. We are funding some research ourselves to make progress, but I hope that the pharmaceutical companies will do more, because many children are born HIV-positive and they will need this treatment if they are to stay alive.

Neil Gerrard: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems with the global fund is the lack of long-term certainty over its funding? Yet again, it was only last-minute contributions—including some from this country—that allowed the round five talks to go ahead this year. If we are to plan for the future, we do not want continually to be in a position of not knowing how much money is going to be available even one year ahead. Will the Secretary of State press that matter at the next replenishment conference?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend, who does so much work on this, is absolutely right. The successful bit of the replenishment conference was indeed the fact that sufficient funding was made available to continue with all the current projects. We are looking to launch a round six this year. In the end, this is about encouraging people to contribute more through the global fund, because that is part of the fight against AIDS, as well as TB and malaria, and through supporting developing countries in improving their health services. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, as of December, the global fund was supporting 384,000 people on antiretroviral treatment. It helped to treat 1 million cases of TB and distributed 8 million insecticide-treated bed nets. Those are practical examples of the effect the fund is having.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about children and AIDS. Will he support the call by UNICEF for a £200 million fund to develop combination formula for children and also to deal with the diagnostics, which are particularly important for young children? Will he give a commitment on that, or at least agree to take the issue away and look at it?

Hilary Benn: The majority of countries hit by the tsunami have pledges of aid sufficient to meet the funding required for reconstruction. For example, in Sri Lanka, the cost of recovery has been an estimated $2.2 billion, and the Sri Lankan Government have indicated that all pledges received total some $3.3 billion. However, in all the countries affected, there are big challenges in turning that into reconstruction, some of which will take many years to complete.

Mark Simmonds: The Government have reneged on their promise to match public donations after the tsunami, providing only £290 million as against the £450 million donated by the generous British public. The vast majority of the Government money consisted of tax relief on public donations, European Union spending and debt relief.
	Partly because of broken promises, reconstruction progress has been frustratingly slow. Some 1.5 million people remain without adequate shelter, and, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, land disputes are numerous as boundary markers and records have been destroyed. What specifically are the Secretary of State and his Department doing to facilitate secure and formal property rights, which are an essential component of economic reconstruction and wealth creation in tsunami-affected areas as elsewhere?

Graham Stuart: The year 2005 was to make poverty history, yet our EU presidency has come and gone with much noise and little achievement. What lessons have been learnt, so that when we next have the EU presidency, we can bring trade justice, not a continuation of selfish protectionism?

Tony Blair: I do, actually. First, may I wish my hon. Friend and all Scots well for Burns day and Burns night? Secondly, may I point out that, since the Government came to power, there are about 200,000 more people in work in Scotland, unemployment is down by a third, employment is at its highest level since records began, and over half a million people have been lifted from absolute poverty in Scotland? The Scottish economy is thriving. There is investment in the public services and poverty is getting better, not worse.

Tony Blair: I, of course, want to see more good schools, which is why I am delighted to say that, since this Government came to power, the number of schools where over 70 per cent. of the pupils get five good GCSEs is up from just over 80 in 1997 to over 500 today. Thanks to the investment and reform introduced by the Government, there are more good schools and more pupils going to them.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister will have our support, but I have to say that I love these lectures on consistency from him. His first act as Prime Minister was to abolish grant-maintained schools, and his last act as Prime Minister is to bring them back again. This is someone who came into politics to soak the rich and ban the bomb, and ever since, he has been sucking up to the rich and dropping bombs. But enough of that—back to education.
	The Prime Minister told us that every time he has introduced a reform, he wished that he had gone further. So will he accept our offer of support in the Division Lobby, so that he can put the whole of his White Paper into the Bill, and will he put the Bill to the House without delay? Time is running out for the Prime Minister, so will he get on with it?

Tony Blair: First, of course we will publish the Bill shortly and put it to the House, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's support on it. But when he talks about consistency in politics, he should be a little wary of doing so. He may have a point about the Labour 1983 election manifesto and what we have done subsequently, but let me point out to him some of the things that he has changed his mind on within the last few weeks, not the last few months. He said of the patient's passport:
	"We will say to people languishing on waiting lists that if they . . . go private they can take with them one half of what the operation would have cost on the NHS."
	That was the right hon. Gentleman in June 2004. In June 2005, he said:
	"I think we were wrong to have a patient's passport that took people off . . . "
	On foundation hospitals, in May 2003, he said:
	"This week the Labour Government . . . brought forward their plans for Foundation Hospitals . . . the Conservative party voted against them—a decision I wholeheartedly supported."
	In November 2005, he said:
	"It was a mistake frankly to oppose foundation hospitals".
	Shall I go on? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: Obviously, that is an immensely tempting offer, and personally I have never found my hon. Friend irritating in any shape or form; I have always welcomed him as an independent thinker. I am afraid that he will have to wait until we make our announcement on the Wilson doctrine, but let me repeat what I said, I think, to the House last week. This issue arises for no other reason whatever than recommendations put to us by the interception of communications commissioner. We are considering it carefully and once we have come to a decision, we will of course announce it to the House.

Tony Blair: The international community is failing people in Darfur, which is why it is so important that we take the measures that the Secretary of State for International Development and, indeed, the Government, have been pressing for. Those measures have got to include not just immediate humanitarian help, but making sure that the African Union peacekeeping force comes up to its full strength. The only way that the situation in Darfur is going to improve is when there are sufficient peacekeeping forces on the ground to keep the combatants apart, when the process of dialogue and peace takes place that we have been calling for, and, obviously, when the measures are in place to improve humanitarian help. So we have to do more, but we are doing more, and I should point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we, as the British Government, have been leading the efforts in this area and will continue to do so.

Tony Blair: We have to listen to what people are saying and, obviously, there are different views about police reform. One possibility is for strategic coming together on certain issues, rather than mergers, but that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. We should listen carefully to what people are saying, but the reason why this has come forward as an issue is that the Association of Chief Police Officers said that it believed that the present configuration of forces was not satisfactory in fighting crime. As a result, we commissioned a report from the inspectorate of constabulary. That report said very strongly that fundamental reform was needed, and that is why the proposals have been brought forward. I agree that it is important that we listen carefully to people are saying. The trouble is, as always in such situations, that not everyone is in agreement about the right way forward. The aim should be the most effective way to police local communities with the greatest amount of accountability and effectiveness. Obviously, we will listen carefully to what people say.

Tony Blair: That is precisely what we are doing—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. For example, the summary powers and fixed penalty notices are a massive saving on bureaucracy as chiefs of police often point out. The right hon. Gentleman talks about police reform, but I think that the most important thing is that the police get the right, visible and uniformed presence out on the street. That is why it is important not merely that we have record numbers of police officers, but that we supplement them with community support officers and that all of them are given the powers they need in local communities. It is all very well to talk, as the right hon. Gentleman does, about incompetent or lazy police officers, but I do not think that that is the problem with the police. The problem is that they need the powers that we have agreed to give them—I hope that he will support us on that—and they also need to be backed up by the right support staff, and that must include community support officers. If he were able to support that agenda—as well as, incidentally, not only the antisocial behaviour agenda but the organised crime proposals that will be made soon—we would have a far better opportunity to achieve effective policing in our communities.

Tony Blair: At the risk of alienating every Arsenal supporter in the country, I congratulate Wigan on its progress. Unfortunately, I had the poor judgment to switch off in the 28th minute of extra time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was nodding throughout my hon. Friend's question. I was not quite sure whether she was nodding when he got to his swimming pool point, but I am sure that she will listen carefully to what he says. The Olympics has tremendous potential for every single region of the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that Wigan has come an enormous way in the past few years in every sporting sense, so I am sure that it will benefit enormously from the Olympics, which, as I say, I believe will benefit not only London, but the whole of the country.

Tony Blair: The relationships across Europe among the political parties and their different groupings have a beneficial impact on parties themselves and are important for the country. In the European Parliament, it is important that the Labour party is able to work with other labour parties and that the Conservative party is able to work with other conservative parties. I look forward to that Conservative policy being changed as well, so when that happens, of course I will welcome it.

Tony Blair: It will be important that we use the new powers to raise standards in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere, but I am sure he will accept that one of the benefits of this Government is the massive investment in education. That has meant, for example, that in an area such as his, the number of 11-year-olds passing their exams has increased dramatically over the past few years; the number of 16-year-olds getting five good GCSEs—[Interruption.] It is true. In Merton and elsewhere, that is exactly what has happened. That is why the process of investment and reform will continue, but under this Government.

John Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight in light of today's press reporting on possible future British military involvement in Afghanistan. First, may I say that no decisions have been taken about the deployment of British forces to Afghanistan; nor will they be taken until such time as I have had the opportunity not only to tell the House but to consult my Cabinet colleagues?
	Secondly, Mr. Speaker, as you will know, we have continually tried to update and inform the House on Afghanistan in written statements, debates and questions as recently as Monday of this week.
	Thirdly, since I assume that today's urgent question has been prompted by, in particular, a report in The Sun this morning, let me say that, as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing in today's media about our potential deployments that has not been reported before. Indeed, if hon. Members would like to read The Sun of 22 August last year, they will see that almost every single element of this morning's story was reported as being imminent on 22 August. In The Sun in particular, the reporting reprises themes in that article. The only new element is the suggestion that I would be making a statement to Parliament tomorrow on our plans on which the article speculates.
	I want to make it clear that there is nothing more important to me and to the Government than the need for Parliament and my Cabinet colleagues to hear of our plans before anyone else, and certainly before the media. I therefore want to make it equally clear that my officials did not speak to the press about the contents of any such statement. Let me explain precisely what did happen, since I think that that will be at least partly the concern of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
	Conscious of next week's landmark London conference on Afghanistan, and the interest in the subject which has gone on for some considerable time and was reflected on Monday at Question Time, the Ministry of Defence offered an article under my signature to The Sun. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) laughs, but he should allow me to continue—I understand that he has a contest on.
	The article set out in broad terms the achievements of the international community, and of the United Kingdom in particular, since our intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, and the importance of maintaining that commitment to see the job through. It was of the flavour of the answer that I gave to the Chairman of the Defence Committee on Monday, when I said that we were not about to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban or the terrorist.
	The article specifically did not go into detail about possible future military deployments or commitments. Indeed, when the article was suggested to the newspaper, it was rejected on Monday as being insufficiently newsworthy. Ironically, therefore, it was rejected precisely because we refused to leak details of any future possible statement. We never got to the stage of handing the draft article over. Secondly, it was suggested that I might do an interview on the matter of British deployment, and we refused that as well.
	There has been endless media speculation for months on radio and television and in magazines about a possible announcement on Afghan troop deployment. I recall arriving home in the last week from Kuwait to hear that the headline article on the "PM" programme was yet further speculation about troop deployments to Afghanistan. On radio, television, the web and in the printed press, everyone has had an opinion, more or less well informed. This morning's reporting is a summary of that speculation—nothing more. The Ministry of Defence's press office has been, and continues to be, besieged by inquiries concerning our plans for Afghanistan; there are up to 20 a day.
	Let me tell the House why I have refused at this stage to make an announcement about deployment. As I continually said to the House under questioning more than four months ago, I will not announce the detailed deployment to the south, although the principle of deploying to the south has already been announced, until I am absolutely satisfied about three things. The first is that the British military configuration is sufficient to meet the task in hand in the opinion of my commanders who advise me. The second is that the economic development aid and moneys are sufficient to offer alternative livelihoods and development if we are to tackle narcotics. The third is that we have a NATO configuration of military troops around us that satisfies me. As I pointed out to the House on Monday, I am satisfied on the first and I am satisfied on the second, but I am not yet satisfied on the third.
	However, I noted at oral Defence Questions on Monday that a statement would be imminent. If Members look at Hansard of only three days ago, column 1158, they will see that I said in relation to a possible statement:
	"I do not think that that will be too long from today."—[Official Report, 23 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1158.]
	I can only assume from the various indicators and the facts that I had announced an imminent statement, that it is Wednesday today, that we do not make statements on Friday and that the Afghan conference is to start on Monday that it did not take a genius to work out that I was perhaps intending to make a statement tomorrow. Let me be absolutely clear that it was, and continues, to be my intention to make a statement on Afghanistan in the House tomorrow. The media this morning have guessed correctly on that.
	I will not, however, make such a statement until I have consulted my Cabinet colleagues. Indeed, I chose to ask—if the authorities in the House think it appropriate—to make the statement tomorrow precisely so that the distance between my consultation with my Cabinet colleagues and the communication of any views to the House was so close together that, on such a sensitive issue, we would not have leaks of this nature.
	I want to make a statement tomorrow for the reasons I have already intimated. The London conference will take the development of Afghanistan to the next stage, and a statement will help the House to understand better how the UK military fits into that picture. I also want to lessen the uncertainty affecting service families in the wake of months of speculation about possible deployments, months during which I have refused to make any comment about those deployments. I wanted to tackle that further speculation head on. It is unfortunate that there has been another bout of it at such an untimely juncture.
	I repeat that I did, and still do, plan to make a statement tomorrow if the House authorities and you, Mr. Speaker, think that that is appropriate. However, I cannot say today precisely what will be in that statement. It was my decision some weeks ago to make it in order to update the House, but the details and decisions will not be finally decided until I have completed the full consultation today and consultation tomorrow with my Cabinet colleagues. The media speculation, therefore, could turn out to be right or it could turn out to be very, very wrong indeed. I plan to discuss the issue with Cabinet colleagues over the next 24 hours, and that will determine the precise nature of the statement that I make.
	I hope that I have explained the circumstances that have led to the most recent—and only the most recent—bout of speculation about deployment to Afghanistan. I hope that the House understands that I regret that as much as anyone else, not least because my Cabinet colleagues will ask the same question as the House.

Michael Moore: May I say to the Secretary of State that we would echo the international consensus about the need for support for Afghanistan, which he has expressed? Clearly the Secretary of State and the House are caught in a somewhat difficult position today. I look forward to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman promises us tomorrow or whenever he deems it appropriate to make it. While he is properly focusing on the issues to do with the NATO configuration, he has already said that he is satisfied about the British configuration and also with the economic development and other assistance that will be made available to the Afghanis in the future. In his statement, when he makes it, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to cover details about those two issues as well.

John Reid: I undertake to do that. This may sound pedantic but I do not want anyone in the House to assume genuinely that I will come to the House tomorrow to say that we are deploying, and deploying in a said fashion. That would be to pre-empt the consultations that are yet to take place. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in our deliberations and discussions so far, and in the questions that we have been rightly asking, as have our commanders, both the points that he has raised have featured highly. I will address them, one way or the other, tomorrow.

Gavin Strang: The whole House will welcome the clarification that the Secretary of State has given us this afternoon. Surely there is nothing more important than the decision to deploy our service people in a country where their lives are at risk. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that on narcotics, the best contribution that we could make would to limit the consumption of narcotics in this country. I trust that we will not make the mistakes that were made in south America. There is no military solution to the drugs problem. The only solution is to get involved with communities and provide encouragement and incentives to the small farmers to produce alternative crops. Of course, that will displace some of the narcotic crop to other countries.

John Reid: Thank you very much to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Jim Dobbin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of palliative care for persons suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.
	Palliative care is about enhancing quality of life and enabling patients to live as actively as possible until they die, naturally and peacefully and, whenever possible, with their families around them. I am proud of the fact that the UK leads the world in palliative care, but the reality is that we are not doing enough because the service remains underfunded.
	The all-party parliamentary group on dying well was launched on 10 January to ensure that we all have the opportunity of a good death and that we die with dignity, by pressing for better and more widely available palliative care, by promoting greater support for friends and family members who care for the dying, by opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, and by encouraging debate and promoting understanding of how people can achieve comfortable and natural deaths.
	There is strong objection to the recent attempt by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to rename itself Dignity in Dying—a name synonymous with the hospice movement and with palliative care. The chief executives of Marie Curie Cancer Care, Help the Hospices, and the National Council for Palliative Care said yesterday:
	"We deplore the misleading use of the phrase Dignity in Dying as the new proposed name and trademark for VES, an organisation whose clear intent is the promotion of euthanasia. We urge Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Charity Commission to ensure that this is prevented."
	They added:
	"We believe the development of excellent palliative care at the end of life in the last decade has ensured that hundreds of thousands of people have experienced a dignified death."
	The quality of palliative care in Britain has made huge strides during the last 10 to 20 years, but its quantity and distribution have not kept pace. As a result, there is something of a postcode lottery for the terminally ill. Inadequate funding is allocated to palliative care in the NHS and there are not enough trained specialists in practice. Two recent parliamentary reports drew attention to these shortfalls and the Government have indicated that they are investing more money in palliative care. For example, in 2003–04, the NHS cancer plan promised an extra £50 million per annum specifically for specialist palliative care. That addition is welcome, but it is thinly spread across the country. Progress is slow and not all the resources are reaching front-line specialists.
	In a recent Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) on care of the dying, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), reaffirmed the Government's commitment to
	"ensuring equality of access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, regardless of age or condition".—[Official Report, 12 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 544.]
	I welcome that commitment, but much more needs to be done. According to a survey commissioned by Marie Curie Cancer Care, 90 per cent. of people believe that the Government have responsibility for maintaining and improving the standards of care for terminally ill people. My Bill seeks to oblige the Government to meet that responsibility.
	In the same Adjournment debate, the Minister highlighted the fact that palliative care was "heavily weighted" towards cancer patients. The National Council for Palliative Care estimates that, while 95 per cent. of patients using hospice or palliative care have cancer, 300,000 people with other terminal diseases are excluded. It is a fact that cancer patients have access to the most and the best palliative care. Yet even for those with cancer, the provision is far from satisfactory. According to Marie Curie Cancer Care, more than 155,000 people die of cancer every year, yet Help the Hospices points out that there are only 3,250 hospice beds available, and that 2,489 of them are supplied by the voluntary sector. Half of all patients diagnosed with motor neurone disease die within 14 months of diagnosis, yet a survey carried out in 2005 found that only 39 per cent. of such patients were referred to specialist palliative care services. Is it any wonder that people take fright when diagnosed with MND?
	My Bill will seek to broaden the scope of palliative care so that it encompasses all those with a terminal illness. This is an ambitious aim, but it can be achieved with sustained Government investment and support. Only last December, the NHS Confederation report highlighted the pressing need to improve end-of-life care for the terminally ill. The report pointed out that 56 per cent. of terminally ill patients would prefer to die at home, but that only 20 per cent. do so. Another statistic showed that only 11 per cent. of people want to die in hospital, yet 56 per cent. spend their final hours there.
	Inconsistent community provision and ineffective co-ordination between service providers affect people's ability to die where they choose. Unless we get to grips with the problem, the situation will get worse. According to the NHS Confederation, care of the dying is the cause of repeated complaints to the health service ombudsman. As far as the NHS Confederation is concerned, all that points to an increased need for integration of "health and social agendas". Just as pregnant mothers have birth plans, there should be advanced end-of-life care plans, to be based on a full assessment of each patient's needs, including the need for good-quality palliative care. Good examples of such plans are already in place, including the gold standards framework, the NHS end-of-life care programme and the Liverpool care pathway. I hope that the Government will use their forthcoming White Paper on health and social care outside the hospital to show how they will meet the five key recommendations in the NHS Confederation report.
	Palliative care does not require expensive treatments or technology, because its essence lies in specialist knowledge of how to use pain-relieving drugs and how to give holistic care to ease the dying process. A relatively small refocusing of NHS resources could bring disproportionate benefit compared with other branches of medicine. Only a minority of us will need cardiac surgery or neurosurgery, but one in two of us will be in need of good palliative care when we die.
	Marie Curie Cancer Care points out in its "Dying at Home" report that every pound invested in home palliative care services will free up £2 in the national health service. By extending palliative care to all terminally ill patients, the Government would save the NHS money. That is an attractive proposition, yet, despite increased funding commitments, the number of cancer patients dying at home has remained the same, and 80 per cent. of the resources allocated to specialist palliative care are allocated to hospital-based care.
	A Help the Aged report found that older people were
	"less likely than younger people to receive support at home, in hospital or in a hospice, or to receive attention from GPs or district nurses during the last year of their lives. Older people are often described as the 'disadvantaged dying'."
	Children are at a disadvantage, too. There is an acute shortage of paediatric palliative care medicine consultants. That is not surprising, when one considers that children's hospices receive only about 5 per cent. of their funding from official sources, while adult hospices receive 30 per cent. from the same sources.
	Comprehensive palliative care legislation should be our priority. Legalising euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would undermine the values and ethos of palliative care, a field in which Britain has led the world. For that reason, my Bill will specifically prohibit the wilful killing of patients. It will ensure that everyone has the right to a good death, regardless of age, diagnosis, ethnicity, background or postcode. I commend this patient-centred Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jim Dobbin, Mr. Frank Field, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Paul Rowen, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Julian Brazier, John Robertson and Mr. Joe Benton.

James Duddridge: Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the Bill applies not only to ships at sea but to ships coming down estuary areas such as the Thames? Furthermore, will the compensation arrangements include ships once they are docked and static?

John MacDougall: I am grateful for the meeting that we had on ship transfer in the River Forth. As my hon. Friend is aware, the main concern is that, should an incident take place, albeit that the likelihood of that happening is minute, the scale of the problem would be enormous. Is he satisfied that the range of compensation suggested in the Bill would meet such a situation? Is there any way in which further compensation can be offered should an incident cause a much larger problem than the scale of liability covers?

Stephen Ladyman: I am confident that, were an incident to occur in the firth of Forth—let us hope that we are never in that position—arrangements are in place that would adequately compensate people, or that would require those making oil shipments there to have liability cover such that they can provide compensation. Although such an accident would be devastating, I doubt whether one could occur of sufficient scale to trigger the supplementary fund that we are discussing today. But I am confident that the range of provisions that will be available once the Bill is enacted will be sufficient to compensate people. That does not detract from the seriousness of the issue facing people in the firth of Forth. As my hon. Friend knows, consultations are under way on what may or may not be allowed there.
	The Bill allows the UK to implement two important international treaties that will benefit both the environment and the financial protection of UK coastal interests. It is also important for the UK to be seen to be actively adopting these measures, especially bearing in mind the prominent role that we played in negotiating them. Many Members may wish to comment on measures not in the Bill that we could have taken to protect the marine environment and to deal with marine pollution, but as I said, including them would have delayed the Bill. Urgency is appropriate here to get these provisions into place, so that we are fully protected. I shall do my best to answer Members' detailed questions in the winding-up speech, if the House grants me leave to give it. I want to be as helpful as possible in order to encourage consensual and rapid progress. I look forward to the debate today and in Committee, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Lee Scott: This is a Bill of only a few pages, yet it has the potential to make a significant increase in the level of financial compensation available in the event of a large oil spillage from a ship. It will also allow the United Kingdom further to control emissions from ships.
	Most of the goods and food imported or exported to and from Britain travels by sea. Britain is surrounded by major shipping routes and the English Channel is the world's second busiest international waterway. In the main, transporting goods by cargo ship is an environmentally friendly form of transportation. However, when it goes wrong, it can go spectacularly wrong.
	The United Kingdom's miles of coastline are at high risk from spills from tankers, and three of the world's worst oil spill disasters have occurred in UK waters. We need only remember the Torrey Canyon off the Isles of Scilly in 1967, the Braer off Shetland in 1993, and, as we have heard, the Sea Empress off Milford Haven in 1996, to illustrate how damaging such an incident can be. Oil slicks do not respect maritime national boundaries, so it is only through co-ordinated international action that we can arrive at a successful solution to that type of pollution.
	This Bill will bring the United Kingdom into line with international efforts to tackle the appalling effects of oil spillages. It will allow the UK to implement two important international treaties: the first greatly to improve the compensation for oil pollution and the second to take measures to reduce air pollution from ships.
	Over the years, we have seen graphic television images of the effects of oil spills on the environment, on wildlife and on local people. Sadly, the effects can be very long term, and they can wipe out species in an area and destroy local livelihoods. Marine oil pollution can have devastating effects. The television pictures of disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez incident that took place in Prince William sound, Alaska, in 1989, made us all too familiar with the dreadful images of polluted coastlines, oiled sea birds and mammals and the other damage caused to wildlife. The local coastal communities lost their fishing and tourism industries to this major oil spill. The sinking of the Prestige in 2002 saw the discharge of 63,000 tonnes of oil, and fishermen, local hoteliers, restaurant owners and others along the Portuguese and north Spanish coast were all badly affected. In the Torrey Canyon incident off Land's End in 1967, it was quickly clear that the then existing arrangements for compensating those who suffered damage were woefully inadequate.
	It has to be recognised that the recent figures from the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation show that the number of oil spillages has reduced by around one-third since the 1970s. Large spills have reduced dramatically. Most spills from tankers result from routine operations such as loading, discharging and bunkering. These most often occur in oil terminals or ports, and most result in an oil discharge of less than 7 tonnes. Incidents in which the tanker collides with another ship or harbour facility or when it runs aground are what normally lead to the larger oil spills. Almost 20 per cent. of these result in spills where more than 700 tonnes of oil are lost.
	The one-third improvement in reducing oil spills is explained by the introduction of better crew training, improved terminal handling facilities, better technology and, most significantly, by the introduction of double-skinned hulls for tankers. Unfortunately, numbers of older singled-hulled vessels still operate, many under flags of convenience. Inspection shows that one in 12 of the foreign vessels inspected in the United Kingdom are unseaworthy and have to be detained. This is a disgrace. Elsewhere in Europe the situation is worse, with almost three quarters of ships inspected found to be suffering from severe deficiencies.
	I am concerned that some countries have not yet announced plans and a timetable to sign up to the supplementary fund protocol. A number of these countries are flags-of-convenience carriers or open-register countries and have significant registered tonnage. Most are party to the old fund regime, but not to the new one. It would be common sense for those countries that join the new protocol to deny access to their waters and ports to ships from countries that do not sign up to the scheme by the deadline date. If this is not done, tanker operators from the countries signed up to the protocol will be working at a competitive disadvantage.
	Given the greater risk of catastrophic oil spillage from a singled-hulled tanker, these should certainly be banned from entering European Union waters. There was discussion some time ago on this matter, and I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government would support such a ban.
	The Bill also enables the UK to reduce air pollution from ships by implementing measures to control emissions. Ships are getting ever larger, as are their engines, and they produce a great deal of sulphur and nitrogen emissions. Some improvement can be made by reducing the sulphur and nitrogen content in marine fuel, but more innovative ideas are being tried by firms such as P&O. It has fitted a device to one of its Dover-Calais cross-channel ferries called an eco-silencer—a "scrubber", in effect. This is designed to cut sulphur emissions by 95 per cent. and nitrogen oxides by 80 per cent. I understand that many other companies are considering similar proposals.
	A number of ports in the USA and Canada have introduced revised structures that allow ships in harbour to draw electrical power from shore. This has the great advantage that it enables the ship to turn off its engines in port while it loads or unloads, thereby reducing pollution in the port and the surrounding area.
	There are two other areas of ship-produced pollution that I would like to discuss. The first is the improper disposal into the sea of rubbish and human waste. The second is the transportation of non-native species in the ballast water of a ship that is then disposed of at sea thousands of miles away. These exotic newcomers can then become a serious threat to native plants and animals. These issues are covered, as is oil pollution, by international laws, rules and agreements. However, in too many cases, the polluter is not prosecuted or even identified. I seek an assurance from Ministers that this is an issue that they will look at.
	Like my colleagues, I fully support the Bill and welcome it.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister said in his opening remarks that the Bill was precise and targeted, and it is. Essentially, it provides the United Kingdom with protection and the best compensation in relation to pollution from oil, and reduces air pollution from ships. We support the UK getting protection from the supplementary fund protocol.
	The Bill deals with our environment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) reaffirmed recently in an excellent speech that the Conservative party has a long history and a bright future in environmental matters. That is certainly true today—it is 3–0 to the Opposition on environmental matters.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to the three excellent points made in interventions by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). He asked for clarification of the definition of pollution in the Bill, and whether it would extend to non-fuel oil and oils that have formed a solid. Perhaps more importantly, he asked for confirmation that the Bill would not act retrospectively to prevent the usage of historical vessels in regattas. I am sure that the Minister will provide clarification in his winding-up speech.
	I also want to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in his opening remarks. What pressure might be applied to non-signatories of the supplementary fund protocol? While non-signatory country vessels might have insurance, they will not have enough insurance to deal with major spillages. We welcome the fact that the fund will pay out, but will the Minister explore what pressure might be exerted by the Government on non-signatories, who are nothing more than freeloaders, to sign up?
	We have had an excellent debate. I did wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) started his speech injudiciously by saying that he got off on things like this. When I remembered that he was a Conservative, not a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, I knew that he would talk only about matters environmental and nothing more inappropriate. He brings his extensive experience in the European Parliament to the mother of Parliaments.
	My hon. Friend raised some interesting questions. He referred to the high level of sulphur dioxide that is emitted from shipping in coastal areas around the UK, and welcomed the Government measures, as we do. He also referred to shipping in port, the need to fit seawater scrubbers, and the efficacy of those mechanisms. I trust that the Minister will have noted the distinction that he drew between the Pride of Kent and the Pride of Canterbury. Perhaps he will want to reflect on that when he replies to the debate. My hon. Friend also expressed his desire to see the renewal of the derogation for leisure craft. I know that he has written to the Minister about that, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to comment on that in his reply to the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) reminded us all of the potential threat to the UK coastline and of the need for coherent and co-ordinated international action against pollution to stop the damage to wildlife and local industry. He pointed out that despite many improvements in safety measures, one in 12 vessels inspected in the UK is un-seaworthy, and most of them appear to be from non-signatories of the supplementary fund protocol. Again, he asked whether the Government should take some action in that respect or ban non-signatories from sovereign waters or ports. I look forward to the Minister's comment on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who is another of the excellent 2005 club additions to the Opposition Benches, made a contribution based on his considerable experience of the shipping industry. He pointed out that, over many years, several improvements have been secured under Governments of both hues. He stressed that that was not grounds for complacency, and spoke about the importance of safety measures on some vessels and the need for better training. He also stressed both that shipping was the green way of moving most goods and the environmental importance of that. To digress slightly, the Government have not addressed the issue of a northern rail link for freight through the midlands to Felixstowe. Such a link would continue the green trend, but freight continues to be moved by road rather than rail.
	The debate has been short but excellent—it has been one of quality not quantity. I confirm that the Opposition support the Bill. We are prepared to do all that we can to ensure that it moves expeditiously through the House.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall address some of the specific issues that were raised by various Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) about the training of ships' officers and the need for high international standards of training and competence. That important requirement bears directly on the threat to our coastline. We try to work within the International Maritime Organisation to raise the standards of shipping generally. Indeed, one of the things that we must do to raise standards and to reduce the threat of pollution to our coastline is to show leadership within that organisation. That goes back to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury and by other hon. Members. To prevent pollution, we are showing such leadership in a number of areas. For example, within the IMO, we have started to move forward on the introduction of e-navigation. We are trying to create an international standard whereby all ships on the high seas will work with electronic navigation systems to the same standard. Those systems will work together and allow ships to be recognised from the shore and to recognise one another while at sea, to avoid collisions and groundings. There is a great deal of support for that work within the IMO, and I hope that we can reach agreement on a standard for e-navigation.
	We have also shown strong leadership within the IMO's flag state audit scheme under which a flag state agrees to have the quality of its fleet audited. I am proud to say that we were the first state to support the scheme and to commit the UK fleet to being audited. Also, we were the first state to promise that, once that audit is complete and we are ready to respond to it, we will make it public. That demonstrates our strong leadership in terms of raising standards. A number of other states have responded to our lead by saying that not only will they have their fleets audited, but that they will consider making the audits public.
	By adopting such a positive approach, we are doing what we can to raise international standards.

Greg Knight: I hope the Minister will pursue the matter of historic vessels and if necessary raise it in the appropriate international meeting. I am sure that other nations would not want to affect them intentionally. Will he please answer my second question about the scope of the definition of a polluting oil?

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions).
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 9th February 2006.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

Ronnie Campbell: I never thought that I would be staring at four hours of debate on fire services in south-east Northumberland. This is obviously a narrow subject, but I am sure that some Members will try to get in to speak in any case.
	I have raised this issue before on the Floor of the House, in a debate on the fire and rescue service initiated by the Opposition. The question involves south-east Northumberland and the loss of four fire stations. I have a picture of them here, and some are fairly new. The one in Cramlington was built only nine years ago while the one in Blyth was built just as I was elected, nearly 18 years ago. I remember it well. The other two are a bit older—25 and, I think, 26 years old.
	These fire stations are in the townships of Morpeth, which has a population of 20,000; Ashington, which has a population of 30-odd thousand; Blyth, which has a population of 30,000; and Cramlington, which has a population of about 25,000. The Bain report on fire services says that the fire stations should remain at the crux of the townships, but in south-east Northumberland we have a chief fire officer who wants to change that all around. He wants to close these stations. I believe that he wants to demolish two of them, most probably to sell off the sites for housing. That will rake a bit of money in, I suppose.
	The chief officer wants to build two new super fire stations, as they are called, but at what cost? Who knows? It will be a private finance initiative project. The PFI does not affect anyone now, but it will affect a good many people in the future. Obviously someone will build the fire stations—most probably a firm called Jarvis, which I believe is building fire stations elsewhere. We do not know what the costs or the rents will be. The existing four fire stations are perfectly adequate. Even the Fire Brigades Union says that it is quite satisfied with their condition. Indeed, money has just been spent on them: I believe that about £70,000 was spent on new showers and lockers in two of them for the female fire brigade staff who are coming on board.
	There is a lot of money at stake. We talk of value for money, but where is the value here? There are four perfectly good fire stations in the townships, with staff doing their job. They can go anywhere. They can deal with road accidents and fires. I shall say more about that later. Yet the council is taking the PFI route. I do not know how much it costs to build a fire station, or a super-fire station, as the new stations are called, but I know one thing: not one of the proposed new stations is to be built in any of the four townships in south-east Northumberland. They will all be on the outskirts. The one in my area will be on an industrial estate in East Hartford.
	Why is this happening? I do not know, but I have tried to find out. It seems to be the brainchild of the chief officer, but I have talked to county councillors who will have to pass the proposal, and they seem to think it is a good idea. However, in Blyth, Ashington and other areas a petition has been circulating for several months, signed by some 25,000 people who do not want their local fire station to close. That is a large number of signatures—I may even present the petition here—but as the decision has not been made yet, I hope that the petition is gathering pace. There may eventually be 27,000 or 28,000 signatures.
	The county council organised a survey. It sent a questionnaire to every house to ask for people's opinions. When the response arrived, lo and behold, it was against the council. Most people said that they wanted the fire stations to remain in the townships. The council got cracking: it moved one of the PFI fire stations and then launched another consultation. I think that it hoped it would receive the response that it wanted on this occasion. It is the same with referendums: those who keep organising referendums will win eventually. I think that that is what the county council is trying to do.
	Members can imagine what my meeting with the county councillors was like. They appeared to favour the proposal, whereas I totally oppose it, as do other people whom I meet and talk to regularly in my town. I had the strong impression that the councillors were telling me, "We are not to blame. The Government are telling us to get rid of the existing fire stations, to go down the PFI road and to build these smart, brand-new stations." I asked "Has the Minister been on the phone to you? Has he talked to you about the plan?" They said "Not really, but we have been told to use resources more lucratively." That means closing the four fire stations and building two new ones through the PFI.
	Northumberland county council has had to raise its council tax enormously over the past few years. It has not yet proved that the PFI route will save money, although I have asked the question. I should like to see proof. It has had those fire stations for years. I do not whether any of them are paid off. As I said, the Fire Brigades Union is satisfied with the facilities, so why go down the road of the PFI and cause more disruption in raising council tax in Northumberland? The Chancellor may want to look at that. He has gone mad to save money. He has to save it. He is looking at an empty box at the minute, so it would be interesting to know whether that was costed by the Minister. He may be able to tell me whether it has been costed and whether it is cheaper to demolish some pretty new fire stations and build two new PFI stations.
	I come to where the fire stations are situated. A tragedy happened a few weeks ago in Blyth town centre not far from where I live. We have a lot of terraced houses in Blyth. One caught fire. Three people were in the fire. At the time, the two fire appliances at Blyth were on another call at a fire at a factory, so the fire appliance from Cramlington had to come down and cover for Blyth. That was well planned. The bell went. The message was sent that there was a big fire in a house in the centre of Blyth. The Cramlington appliance, which was situated at Blyth station, was there within three minutes.
	Firemen pulled three people from the top part of the smoke-filled house. They brought them out. One was unconscious, another was semi-conscious. Unfortunately, the other, an older man, died on the way to hospital of a heart attack. Under fire brigade and Government statistics, he is not a casualty because you have to be burnt to death, or in hospital more than 24 hours to be classed as a casualty.

Ronnie Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Obviously, he too has been briefed by firemen in my area, as I was going to come to that point. There was all that fire apparatus in that house. I thank him for making that point for me. There could have been more deaths. That is the sad fact.
	We have the figure that 80 per cent. of people who are in fires are dead before the appliance gets there. That magic figures has come from somewhere. Whether it has come from the Minister, I do not know, but 80 per cent. are dead before the appliance gets there. What about the other 20 per cent?
	What are people saying? Are they writing 20 per cent. off? That is basically what they are saying. The Minister should take a cool look at the idea that we are getting into our head: people are dead, so why bother? Why bother about house fires? We are more interested in someone stuck on the motorway or jammed in a car following a car accident than we are in fires. I know that fires have decreased and we should do a lot more but, as my hon. Friend said, that house had been inspected and had all the gear: fire alarms, smoke alarms and everything were fitted. It still did not stop that fire or those people being trapped in it.
	Another fire occurred a week later, just up the road from the first, on an estate called North Farm. A lady was trapped in her house, but because the fire station is at the bottom of the road, a fire engine was there in less than a minute. She was unconscious and had to be taken to hospital to be revived. Fires remain a danger, yet fire appliances are being taken away from the townships where they are needed—appliances that were put there to deal with such fires. Of course, if the Minister intends to stick to the principle behind the 80 per cent. figure, we will be writing off the other 20 per cent. If the fire engine that dealt with the fires in Bondicar terrace and North Farm had had to come from the posh new PFI fire station, it would have taken eight to nine minutes to get there.
	That is the situation in a nutshell: people will die. This is a matter of life and death, yet Northumberland county council is running headlong into this issue. The fire chief says that the engines will get to the fires, but they will have to use rocket fuel. These days, getting through Blyth is very difficult. The roads are clogged—in fact, it is pandemonium. There are only two entrances into Blyth and at certain times of day, it is impossible to get through. That is a big worry. If the rail link that we have been arguing for for many years is established, problems will arise when the train barriers come down on the two roads.
	We can do something to deal with these problems—there can be a plan. We can retain the existing four fire stations in the townships, which is what the people want. Of course, we can never be sure whether new Labour will go along with the people. It sometimes ignores them, but it does so at its peril. I am not ignoring my people—I am listening to them very carefully. A lot of council tax payers' money has been spent on modernising the four existing stations, which are in good shape. We could build a new station at the big training facility, and we could get PFI funding. As the fire union said to me, Blyth could transfer one of its appliances to the new fire station. We have two appliances but we only really need one—Cramlington could cover us and we could cover them. So far as I am concerned, the new station can be located anywhere in south-east Northumberland, and it can have the desired modern facilities. But we could also retain our existing township stations, which are important to the people who live in the area.
	I realise that the Minister cannot tell the county council what to do—no one can—but I ask him to examine the feasibility of retaining the four existing fire stations alongside the big, PFI-financed station. I should also point out that a local business man is prepared to provide financial backing for the new fire station. That might be worth exploring, because after all, that is all PFI is: someone lending money to help build something. Of course, it is then their project, and they can do what they like with it. This man, whom I know very well—he lives in Blyth, so he must have a lot of money—is prepared to back the scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider that idea, because it is no good talking to the fire chief. His head is buried in the sand: he wants two super-fire stations, by hook or by crook. He is making a bad mistake. This is a matter of life and death for the people of Blyth Valley.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley raised the contentious issue of the use of a PFI scheme to develop the new facilities. Has the decision making on the mechanism for use of PFI or mainstream funding also been delegated to individual fire authorities, or is that determined by the Treasury and Government policy?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Treasury and Government policy facilitate the use of PFI as a mechanism for procuring and constructing assets. It is a matter for local authorities how they use the resources that are devolved to them. This is the second time that my hon. Friend and I have debated fire issues. Having started in Committee Room 10 at 9.30 this morning, I am pleased to see him back in his place and continuing to demonstrate his interest as secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group.
	We also have a floor target: by 2010, no local fire and rescue authority should have a fatality rate from accidental fires in the home higher than 1.25 times the national average. We have set performance targets for the level of protection that the public should anticipate receiving from their local fire and rescue service, but through the local consultative programme we have greatly devolved and delegated responsibility for how that is accomplished to the authorities and the chief fire officers.
	The Government have put in place the framework to achieve those targets, and we believe that it is working. Our latest figures show that there was a 16 per cent. fall in the number of accidental dwelling fires between 2003–04 and 2004–05, a major achievement for the service that we must now make sure is sustained. We have put in place the framework to make the achievement of our PSA targets possible.
	The 2004 Act has put prevention at the heart of the Government's agenda for improving the fire and rescue service by creating a new duty to promote fire safety. As we were discussing this morning in Committee Room 10, that is unfinished business going back to the '60s and the '70s. A number of major inquiries, including a royal commission, have said that the fire and rescue service was providing an excellent emergency response but ought to be addressing fire prevention much more in its culture. It was not until the introduction of the 2004 Act that we had the drive to accomplish that, notwithstanding the good fire prevention work that the service has been providing over recent decades. This is taking that work on to a completely different plane. It is a vital part of the work of the fire and rescue service. It is only through fire prevention that we can ensure that the risk to property and to lives is reduced.
	Northumberland fire and rescue authority introduced a focus on community safety education and prevention in 2001, and it is now reaping the benefits of that approach. It achieved zero fire deaths in the home in 2004–05 and a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of deliberate fires in 2003–04, a record of which it can be proud and which it attributes to adopting a preventive approach to its work.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I was trying to explain that I had not heard the figure of 80 per cent. but that I had heard the figure of 50 per cent. I cannot definitively say from the Dispatch Box what the figure is, but I can say that it is estimated to be substantial. Even if a fire station is next door, the prospects may be that some people will still die. The questions are how to deploy and balance resources, how to ensure that we have the most effective preventive arm to stop fires happening in the first place and how best to protect the most vulnerable in the community. As all hon. Members know, the majority of people who die in fires are the elderly, the sick, those with substance or alcohol abuse problems, people with disabilities or the poor who live in houses with bad or no insulation, no central heating and no double glazing.
	That is one reason why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has embarked on its ambitious £25 million programme to carry out home fire safety checks in the 1.25 million most vulnerable homes in the country and to install smoke detectors as the best initial way to protect people by alerting them to the fact that there is a fire in their dwelling and enabling them to escape. We have already carried out almost a third of a million visits and more than 300,000 smoke detectors have been installed particularly in the premises of the elderly and the most vulnerable people in our communities. We believe that that is an important way of demonstrating that fire prevention can work and protect the most vulnerable.
	We are also introducing suppression systems in homes where a smoke detector would not be of use. There is no point in introducing a smoke detector in the home of someone with disabilities and mobility problems, because it would wake them up just to tell them that there were about to suffer a major fire. Sprinkler and suppression systems provide additional protection in those circumstances. They are also being introduced across the country.
	I was referring to the tragic situation in Blyth. As my hon. Friend said, it was a recent event and, at this time, there is still work to be done to ascertain the facts. A formal investigation will find out exactly what happened and the facts will be given to the coroner at the inquest. I am sure that we will all be interested to discover whether there are any lessons to be learned.
	The national framework emphasises that, to make a difference, the service needs to move towards a culture of effective prevention and community fire safety work alongside its already excellent 999 response. That is exactly what is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the move away from prescriptive national standards to locally determined integrated risk. It is not the role of Ministers to agree the operational proposals in an authority's plan. That is for elected members of the fire authority concerned. They are best placed to act on the professional advice of principal officers and to balance the competing local demands on available resources for the benefit of the whole community that they serve.
	I understand, however, that Northumberland has based its proposals on carefully gathered and validated risk assessment data, using the fire safety emergency cover toolkit provided by the ODPM. It has consulted the local community fully on all proposals contained therein and I will come back to the consultative aspects towards the end of my speech.